INDICATORS OF PARTY SYSTEM INSTITUTIONALIZATION Volatility *
Electoral volatility measures the net change in the voting patterns from election to election (Pedersen, 1979, p.3). Volatility also takes into account the splits and mergers among the parties. According to Pedersen, volatility is measured by the following formula:
in which Vi,t is the vote share for a party at a given election (t) and Vi,t-1 is the vote share of the same party ith at the previous elections (t-1)" (Pedersen, 1979, p.4). Party System Closure
The concept of party system closure is concentrated on the most consequential element of the party competition — the composition of government. Thus, it uses one type of information for the three components (access, alternation, and formula) — the shares of ministries in a government by party affiliation (Casal Bertoa and Enyedi, 2016, p. 5-6). The logic behind the emergence of this concept and the corresponding index of party system closure is that the shares of ministries in the government among the parties does not equal the share of the votes or seats that the parties obtained as a result of the elections because the factor of the interactions between the parties in the forms of negotiations and bargaining comes into play. Access
Bertoa and Enyedi operationalize access to government as the percentage of parties in the government which have ever governed before (Casal Bertoa and Enyedi, 2016, p.6). Alternation
The calculation of the alternation in government is based on the logic of Pedersen's index of ministerial volatility with the difference that the percentage of votes for a particular party is replaced with the percentage of ministries governed by the representatives of political parties for two consecutive elections (Whogoverns.eu, 2015, pp. 1-2). To calculate alternation, all the differences in the percentage of ministers belonging to governing parties should be added and divided by two. It should also be noted that since both variations of the extreme scores (close to 0 and close to 100) are manifestations of wholesale alternation, the score for alternation should be standardized according to the following formula:
IGA = (MVis-50)*2
where IGA is alternation and MVis is ministerial volatility (Whogoverns.eu, 2015, p. 2). However, the score should be standardized if and only if the initial score for alternation is less than 50.
The authors consider both total alternation and no alternation as the indicators of party system closure. In the case of no alternation, the reasoning is intuitively understandable because the composition of government does not change at all. In the case of total alternation, the argument is that in this case there is no continuity in the party composition between the governments (Casal Bertoa and Enyedi, 2016, p.4). Formula
The calculation of formula is more complicated than the calculation of two other indicators since it differs according to the type of the previous government: single-party or multi-party. (Bertoa and Enyedi, 2014, pp. 5-6). In case only one or few parties from the previous government coalition are present in the current government, this coalition should be compared to the most similar composition of parties in the coalition which should not necessarily be the last government, but the most similar to the current one. In this case, the innovativeness of the formula is calculated by the percentage of the ministries in the government being analyzed belonging to the parties present in both coalitional governments being compared. If there are several governments having the same number of parties present in the current government, then the comparison should be made with the previous government closest in time. If the government was previously a single-party one, the formula would be the percentage of the ministries belonging to the party which previously governed alone after the emergence of new parties in the coalition. On the contrary, if the government composition changed from being multiparty to a single-party, then the governing formula would be the percentage of the ministers that the party which is currently governing alone had in the previous coalitional government (Whogoverns.eu, 2015, p. 2).
Such an operationalization allows calculating the composite score of closure which would be the average percentage of all three indicators (Casal Bertoa and Enyedi, 2016, p. 6). It should also be noted that if several changes in government happened during a calendar year, the average score for all the changes should be calculated (Whogoverns.eu, 2015, p. 3). Similarly, in order to calculate the value of closure for all the years of a democratic regime, the average value for all the years should be calculated.
Both extreme closure and openness have disadvantages in terms of democracy and the efficiency of government, but for different reasons. Having extreme openness means that the interactions between the parties are not predictable which means total instability both of the party systems and the governments. On the other hand, extreme closure means that a country is basically governed by a single party or a coalition of parties that does not change its composition. However, as Bertoa and Enyedi argue, closed systems tend to facilitate democracy more (2014, p. 11). They also conducted statistical analysis and found that the differences between the cases of survival and collapse between the open and closed systems were statistically significant. Moreover, even within the democratic countries, extreme openness at the beginning of the regime existence is conducive to the breakdown of the regimes. In particular, the study was carried out by Berg-Schlosser and Mitchell in which they explained the survival or collapse of democracy by the fact whether the party system was open or closed in the inter-war period (Bértoa and Enyedi, 2016, p. 8). Democracy
Since the aim of this paper is to find an association between the changes in the level of party system institutionalization and the level of democracy, then the concept of democracy itself needs to be conceptualized and operationalized. In this study, am going to use V-Dem database
as an indicator of the changes in the level of democracy. The reason is that this index does not offer any single definition of democracy, but calculates the scores of democracy according to different theoretical frameworks of democracy: electoral democracy*
, liberal democracy*
, deliberative democracy*
, participatory democrac*
, egalitarian democracy*